6 ms·

I really don't like this proposal. For me, HTML is the markup for the design of the page, while JavaScript makes up the logic. While some frameworks break this,

I really don't like this proposal. For me, HTML is the markup for the design of the page, while JavaScript makes up the logic. While some frameworks break this, they are strictly opt-in, and they still offer a bit of separation of duties. I'd rather see the HTML standard stay markup-focus for now.

Someone1234 12y ago
I wish strict XHTML was taken more seriously. HTML is the structure, CSS is the look, and JavaScript is the logic. With a strict XHTML style you can further enforce this by removing former standards which don't follow that design (e.g. OnClick="" etc). HTML5 is alright, but I'd like to see a strict HTML5 which bans a ton of classic HTML4.1 elements completely and also follows XHTML's much more logical style (and bans things like which make no sense). I understand why they went the way they did (backwards compatibility mostly), but feel like the web would be in a better place ten years from now if a strict spec for at least HTML was commonly used.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
 Strictness accomplishes nothing whatsoever. If you remove presentational elements, people just abuse semantic elements.
 - astine 12y ago
 I would make parsers and generators much easier to write.
 - emodendroket 12y ago
 But there are millions of pages that will never be updated and if a browser can't render them people are going to blame the browser, not the use of deprecated HTML elements (an issue they won't even have awareness of).
 - Someone1234 12y ago
 That's just a generic argument for no new HTML ever.
 emodendroket 12y ago
 No it isn't; it's an argument against breaking changes.
 - Someone1234 12y ago
 > Strictness accomplishes nothing whatsoever. Sure it does, it means it is impossible to mix logic or styling into your HTML inline. That makes HTML more maintainable and teaching it easier (less is always easier to teach than more). What semantic elements are you worried about them abusing? I cannot think of a semantic element which replaces defunct presentational elements without any CSS (which would makes the entire argument redundant).
 - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
 <del>
 - Someone1234 12y ago
 em and strong would be removed in a strict HTML5 standard. All stylised elements would. Span wouldn't as span doesn't impose styling directly.
 TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
 and are semantic, not stylistic.
 - dragonwriter 12y ago
 Strictly speaking, HTML5 did eliminate all presentational elements; formerly presentation HTML4.1 elements retained in HTML5 were redefined as semantic elements. Many elements (even ones that were always, even before HTML5, semantic rather than presentational, e.g., <a href="...">...</a>) have common default presentation effects in most browsers, but that doesn't make them any less semantic. I suppose you could strictly separating presentation from semantic by requiring conforming user-agents to apply no styling differences to any element other than that that provided by CSS (e.g., every element would have the same default presentation.) But its debatable whether that gets you anything useful other than purity for the sake of abstract theory.

Someone1234 12y ago

I wish strict XHTML was taken more seriously. HTML is the structure, CSS is the look, and JavaScript is the logic. With a strict XHTML style you can further enforce this by removing former standards which don't follow that design (e.g. OnClick="" etc). HTML5 is alright, but I'd like to see a strict HTML5 which bans a ton of classic HTML4.1 elements completely and also follows XHTML's much more logical style (and bans things like which make no sense). I understand why they went the way they did (backwards compatibility mostly), but feel like the web would be in a better place ten years from now if a strict spec for at least HTML was commonly used.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Strictness accomplishes nothing whatsoever. If you remove presentational elements, people just abuse semantic elements.
- astine 12y ago
 I would make parsers and generators much easier to write.
 - emodendroket 12y ago
 But there are millions of pages that will never be updated and if a browser can't render them people are going to blame the browser, not the use of deprecated HTML elements (an issue they won't even have awareness of).
 - Someone1234 12y ago
 That's just a generic argument for no new HTML ever.
 - emodendroket 12y ago
 No it isn't; it's an argument against breaking changes.
- Someone1234 12y ago
 > Strictness accomplishes nothing whatsoever. Sure it does, it means it is impossible to mix logic or styling into your HTML inline. That makes HTML more maintainable and teaching it easier (less is always easier to teach than more). What semantic elements are you worried about them abusing? I cannot think of a semantic element which replaces defunct presentational elements without any CSS (which would makes the entire argument redundant).
 - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
 <del>
 - Someone1234 12y ago
 em and strong would be removed in a strict HTML5 standard. All stylised elements would. Span wouldn't as span doesn't impose styling directly.
 - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
 and are semantic, not stylistic.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
 Strictly speaking, HTML5 did eliminate all presentational elements; formerly presentation HTML4.1 elements retained in HTML5 were redefined as semantic elements. Many elements (even ones that were always, even before HTML5, semantic rather than presentational, e.g., <a href="...">...</a>) have common default presentation effects in most browsers, but that doesn't make them any less semantic. I suppose you could strictly separating presentation from semantic by requiring conforming user-agents to apply no styling differences to any element other than that that provided by CSS (e.g., every element would have the same default presentation.) But its debatable whether that gets you anything useful other than purity for the sake of abstract theory.